patrick.net

well said

With all of the media propaganda, the glen becks, rush limbaughs, faux news, right wing/left wing nuts out there... people respond to drama. It's alot easier to blame the problems of the country on the government than to admit we voted for them.

I do find it ironic that the pundits that scream about how poorly the country is run - and purport to be there for the little guy - make millions of dollars each year from the people who can afford it least. Faux news sponsored the t-parties and made money off the sponsors while claiming to be agents of "change." Sarah Palin makes millions off of a failed run for the VP, had a ghost writer for her book and now is a pundit for faux news. All the while, claiming to be there for the "little guy." Yea, right.

It goes both ways - both right wing & left wing pundits make millions while the unemployment rate rises. People want to blame someone and they listen to everything they're told. Mob mentality sucks.

It's hard to hate the government when it is we...

I don't hate the Government, I don't care for people that try to marginalize the government by being a Unilateral Proxy of the Democratic process.

Anyone party only has a marginal 50% majority. I reality there is no Majority, so one party can't just ignore the other 50% while claiming to speak for that other, even as they rapidly lose that majority support from their own constituents then govern by "At all cost" and "It's better than nothing".

If your party is truly throwing a Coup against the American democratic process, then God Damn it you better some "Great" accomplishments in your legacy. Vague shouts of "Change" and ending up by "Chance" with half assed half backed compromised fractured "better than nothing" legislation.

Then it wont take long for History to catch up with that ideology and beat the living hell out of it. Pseudo Legacy legislation as the Democrats have been leading with for a year, has already played it's course. They lost and they have them selves to blame. They had the deck stacked from top to bottom, and for the Democrats to now belly ache, and blame the Republicans, and every one else. And BTW, I'm an Interdependent and he never had my vote, which the media keeps claiming he had the Independents and have lost them.

The Liberals couldn't even get a Congress and Senate full of Liberals to buy their own crap they were selling each other. It is 110% the fault of the Democrats to have not passed any tangible in this first year. KNOCK on ehping wood! I'll take my Victories any way I can.

I just can't believe anyone really pays 45% in the USA. I don't see how it's possible, even in California.

If you're making over $100K but less than $200K, you may get up to the maximum marginal rate of 35% Fed and 9% CA, but that ignores all the income below that marginal rate, which is taxed at lower percentages.

If you make more than $200K, you probably get more of your income from long-term capital gains and dividends, which are taxed only at 15% because class warfare is over and the rich won that war during the Bush years.

And if you make some absurd amount of money, you probably pay even less because you have good lawyers.

RayAmerica says

I suggest you read the Constitution of the United States for a definition of why government exists.

Actually the Declaration of Independence is a better guide.

I just can’t believe anyone really pays 45% in the USA. I don’t see how it’s possible, even in California.

When you factor in state, local, federal, FICA, Medicare, sales, energy, unemployment, fuel, etc... and the hidden tax of inflation I would suspect that it is closer to 50% of our annual income is confiscated by the bureaucracy. For our own good of course.

AdHominem says

Actually the Declaration of Independence is a better guide.

I have no problem using the Declaration as a "guide" while using the Constitution as an instrument in limiting the powers of the centralized government.

RayAmerica says

AdHominem says

Actually the Declaration of Independence is a better guide.

I have no problem using the Declaration as a “guide” while using the Constitution as an instrument in limiting the powers of the centralized government.

OK Ray,

Merely pointing out that the Declaration tells is WHAT many early Americans believed about government, whereas the Constitution describes HOW we are attempting to achieve these ideals.

Therefore the Declaration of Independence is a better source of WHY early Americans believed government exists. The Constitution primarily tells us how, not why.

I just can’t believe anyone really pays 45% in the USA. I don’t see how it’s possible, even in California.
If you’re making over $100K but less than $200K, you may get up to the maximum marginal rate of 35% Fed and 9% CA, but that ignores all the income below that marginal rate, which is taxed at lower percentages.
If you make more than $200K, you probably get more of your income from long-term capital gains and dividends, which are taxed only at 15% because class warfare is over and the rich won that war during the Bush years.
And if you make some absurd amount of money, you probably pay even less because you have good lawyers.

Have you ever seen property taxes in NJ? In North Jersey, middle class families are paying $12k in taxes their homes.

do you like the way the government solved that big problem we had with hemp and marijuana? through prohibition?

I think to answer the OP, I would say I don't hate the idea of government. I hate that we have a polarized, non-functional, corrupt government that is either unable or unwilling to put the good of the nation ahead of partisan and lobbyist interests. This broken government we have is the product of both parties.

America was born because the colonists got pissed off with an uncaring, distant government. Figuratively I believe the majority of Americans today believe our current government is the same. I believe our representatives in D.C. are totally unfamiliar with our daily lives and struggles. Sure, they give good sound bites about how they stopped by the Salvation Army store and saw some black kid something or other. How many of those people in Congress ever worked for minimum wage, EVER? Most of them are from privileged backgrounds and truly have no concept of what Americans are living with today.

Personally I'd like to see a smaller more focused government. I just don't see how we're going to get there when during the greatest economic crisis of our generation you have congressional committees being called to grill the White House party crashers. REALLY, nothing better to do with your time Mr. Congressman?!

Hating the government has been a favorite pastime of people everywhere in the world since the first governments were formed.

In the US, I hate the government for its inability to operate in a rational and somewhat transparent manner. As an engineer, I'm appalled at our complete inability to make simple and rational decisions. I'd rather have an honest government doing things that I don't support than the convoluted mess that we have today that is ostensibly doing what I'd like.

Well I can only speak for myself. In 2008 (haven't calculated or filed for '09 yet) we had W-2 income of between $97.5K and $98K (approximating numbers here for privacy reasons but I'm reading my 1040 return for the numbers). So basically just about a six-figure W-2 income from day job wages.

Add in taxable interest and taxable refunds (prior year refunds), subtract real estate losses (paper losses only due to depreciation and deductions on a couple rental properties), subtract itemized deductions such as Interest-Only home mortgage interest and child tax credits (2 kids), etc, our Taxable Income on line 43 was between $12K, and $12.1K.

Final federal income tax due for tax year 2008, $1,203.00.

So real tax impact for fiscal '08 to the feds from my family? 1.23%

Real tax impact for fiscal '08 from state income tax? 1.24%

Sure, you can argue about gasoline taxes, car taxes, National Park entrance fees, etc, etc, etc.

What it comes down to for me is that if you read a few books and learn about all the tax breaks for owning real estate investments (1 SFR, 1 duplex, 1 condo) and if you were lucky enough to have bought right and financed right you can almost make your taxable income completely disappear.

For cash flow purposes I only need to worry about how much cash comes in from tenant minus property manager fees. I get a check for net cash in-flow from my property manager. I have a net cash outflow for the PITI payment to the mortgage company. Let's say for example at this point my cash in = cash out.

Now, I may have cash expenditures for repairs or upgrades, but then I get to deduct those expenses against income anyway. And here's the kicker, a lot of my cash out is tax deductible as a business expense (mortgage interest on the property, property taxes) and THEN I GET TO TAKE DEPRECIATION of the building structure and any improvements like the new carpet I put in, the roof I put on in 2003, etc, etc, etc. I get to write off property management expenses just as a business would write off an employee expense. I get to write off a (very small) fraction of my personal home because I have a room used as a home office. I write off the computer and printer I bought for business use. I write off a portion of my utility bills as a business expense, I write off a portion of my cell phone bill. All the last write-offs are only at a small fraction (proportional to personal vs exclusive business use), but they still reduce my taxable income. (There is a limit of a $25K loss annually for a passive investor, which I am since I'm not actively managing the properties personally).

So even though my real estate cash in may = cash out, it's all a great big tax LOSS that reduced my taxable income by almost 1/4. Add in personal residence interest paid, and property taxes paid, and taxes paid for state income tax and that wipes away more than another 1/4 of the W-2 wages.

Add up the Child tax credits, tax-deductible retirement contributions, charitable donations to our church, and there goes another 1/4.

Now I could argue that in paying for property managers and deducting those expenditures from my tax returns I'm just shifting the taxable income to those contractors who will pay their own income taxes. I could argue that reducing my taxable income by donating to the church results in some tax gain for the gov't somewhere else (but not that I'm currently aware of expect church employee incomes). I could argue that reducing my taxable income today by putting funds into tax-deferred retirement accounts will cause the gov't to get more money from me in retirement.

Whatever the arguments, I'll stick the hard numbers at the top of my post and argue that if you structure your life in a tax-advantaged way with the input of research and a CPA you can get away with paying almost no taxes if you're "rich enough" to own a home and real estate investments and have money left over for charity and retirement funding.

So to sum up, I can't really justify for myself being in the "anti-tax" camp because I don't feel I'm really paying all that much in taxes. My "beef" with the gov't is over how it acts, not where it gets its funding.

Hahaha, you're kidding, right...you must be. Concepts too simple for liberals, socialists or progressives: 2 + 2 = 4, debasing your own currency is reckless monetary policy, its fiscally irresponsible to spend more than you have, shall I continue?

Yes, we spend way too much on imperalism (might as well call it what it is) but putting the albatross of health care around the necks of tax payers will only make matters worse, not better. Name ONE government program that provides any service for less that what the private sector does (I mean one WITHOUT a government subsidy).

Honest Abe says

Name ONE government program that provides any service for less that what the private sector does (I mean one WITHOUT a government subsidy).

That's the point though--health care is unlike any other service. You literally can't live without it so there is no substitute for it. And free markets don't work well under those conditions.

I THINK THE REAL PROBLEM IS THE 15%.WHAT I MEAN HERE IS 85%OF US HAVE NO PENSIONS WE GET A PALTRY SOC.SEC CHECK AT 68-70 YEARS(FULL BENEFITS).WHILE POLITICIANS ,STATE ,AND CITY WORKERS GET OUT AS EARLY AS 48.LOOK AT WHAT THEY GET FOR WHAT THEY PUT IN VS US WITH SOC.SEC. IT WILL MAKE YOU SICK.REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS ARE AGAINST SOC.MEDICINE BUT THEY THEMSELVES GET IT.DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS ARE FOR THE COMMON GUY BUT GET LUSH PENSIONS FOR 2 YEARS OF SERVICE.THEN THERE ARE THE TEACHERS AND ALL OTHER PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO GET SO MUCH AND WHINE HOW SCREWED THEY ARE.THIS IS BECAUSE THERE IS IN PLACE A POLITICAL SYSTEM THAT USES THE SERVANTS OF THE STATE -WITH THE MEDIA HELP-TO PROTECT THERE UNBELIEVABLE BENEFITS.IF 401K ARE SO GREAT FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF US WHY ARE THE POLITICIANS ,UNIONS ,AND OTHER PUBLIC SERVANTS ON IT?GET REAL ITS THE PRIVATE(THE MAJORITY) GETTING SCREWED BY THE PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO USE DEM AND REP POLITICIANS TO DIVIDE US.GUESS WHAT IT WORKS.I COULD GO ON BUT I HAVE TO GET BACK TO WORK .

97.6% of statistics are made up or outright lies. Get it?

The "50% of the budget is the military" is a popular, usually leftist, fib. Most of the budget is now interest payments on the debt, social insecurity and medicaid/medicare. The rest, including the military, is gravy. Tee hee. That's one reason why the socialist agenda is DOA in the USA: It's like the USSR all over again: No money. Thanks for slushing all that money to the bankers, Obama! Tee hee! (Did I mention I think that's great?)

I personally don't trust the left because I know that being: A) White and B) Male means I have a huge target on my back. I know there are white male leftists out there (a disproportionate number of whom live in the Bay area) but for the other 65% or so of us, I don't see why I should drink cool aid so that the left can bribe other special interest groups into propping up the socialist fiction for a bit longer. If you want to drink cool aid and chant "Yes we can!", go right ahead. Just take off your sneakers first.

That's really what it always comes down to: Not making government more "efficient" or even "spreading the wealth" around from "the rich". The rich are too well connected to allow their pockets to be picked. If anything, they buddy up with leftist politicians (like bankers and Obama) to get even MORE money! (Can't say I blame them. They're too SMART to drink cool aid!) So the left's paradigm boils down to buying 2 votes via robbing 1. At least until they get enough power to not need to buy votes. Then it's Josef Stalin time. (And the only justice there is that they are the first to get killed. "Hey! When I supported a big socialist state to rob and lie to others, I didn't mean to me! I'm too CARING and GOOD to be held to my own standards!")

Here's the bottom line commies: You clearly have already pushed me under the bus and praying and hoping that I'm foolish enough to feel guilty for being "greedy" to not let you have a second go at it. Among other problems, there isn't money for socialism to work and the demographics of most new socialists is they won't be the kind of electorate to make a socialist utopia either. Think more like Cuba. That's the BEST you can hope for.

PolishKnight says

The “50% of the budget is the military” is a popular, usually leftist, fib. Most of the budget is now interest payments on the debt, social insecurity and medicaid/medicare. The rest, including the military, is gravy. Tee hee.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you're wrong. If you want to cut spending, you have to start and end with the military industrial complex. Otherwise you are wasting your time because there's not enough money anywhere else to make a hill of beans. 50% (+) of the budget is military spending. And you should really include debt payments because it was the military spending that caused us to be in debt in the first place.

Polish--your whole post is ridiculous. More talking points from AM radio. Woe is me--I'm a white male victim. Oh my goodness, I feel so sorry for you...

theoakman says

Actually we do. You should see the budgets for the FDA, SEC, FCC, and every other regulatory agency.

Well, since you brought it up, I would assume that you would actually post the budgets of those agencies and what % of the US budget they represent. That's how you argue a point--with supporting evidence.

theoakman says

It is possible to decrease the spending of the Federal Government by 90% while increasing regulatory measures

Really--90%? Of the overall budget? Please share how you would accomplish this. ie--what would you cut and by how much.

According to wikipedia and other google sources, the military budget is 800 to 1000 billion dollars. The President's proposed budget is 4Trillion. So that means, at most, military spending is 25%. I guess you get your cites from Air America. You can claim that debt it ALL military debt but that would be a stretch, but hey, you expect us to believe that weather getting colder is due to global warming, eh?

Regarding calling me a woe-is-me victim. Indeed, the left smugly claims to be "caring" and smart yet they openly sneer at those they view as no longer politically useful being pushed in front of the bus. Looks like white Massechusettes voters have woken up, eh? Pennsylvania and New York voters aren't as smart, but they'll play catch up!

Polish--

Here's a different take on the budget and military spending.

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm